1) Is Evolution directional?:
No. This is because mutations are random -- you might call them omni-directional. It's just that most hosts with mutations will not successfully reproduce; and rarely some will successfully reproduce with less effort, more often, or have some other advantage.
Think of it like this. If you're lost in the forest and need to get to town to survive, evolution is not like having a compass that slowly but surely points you towards town. Evolution is more like having 20 of you wandering in different directions -- but only a few of you actually make it.
(The analogy is obviously lacking because your making it wasn't non-random, but hopefully you see the point in how evolution is non-directional. It's not like a compass.)
ID_neon said:
a) no direction - every adaptation has equal probability to survive
b) yes -recessive every less adapted population will survive (less complex)
c) yes -progressive every more adapted population will survive
You seriously misunderstand evolutionary processes. None of these options are true.
a) is false because (despite evolution being non-directional) every genotype does not have equal probability to survive; and the same genotype may survive well under some circumstances but poorly under others.
b) is false because evolution is non-directional, and complexity may not even factor into successful replication at all. Sometimes more complexity is worth the biological cost to overcome an obstacle (
e.g., eusocial behavior in hymenoptera). Sometimes less complexity is advantageous due to the reduced biological cost (
e.g., the barnacle
Sacculina carcini having a considerably less complex body plan than other barnacles due to its niche as an internal parasite). Other times complexity has no bearing whatsoever on successful reproduction.
c) is false, aside from another reminder that evolution is non-directional, because it's not guaranteed that an adaptation that "sounds good on paper" will dominate a population's allele frequencies. This can be because of biological cost (the benefit is outweighed by the cost, and the associated risk to acquire energy to make up for that cost in some cases), because the beneficial allele simply isn't beneficial
enough to give a reproductive advantage over the rest of the population, or even because the hosts of otherwise advantageous alleles are simply unlucky and perish before they can pass them on by poor circumstances.
ID_neon said:
2) is evolution cooperative or competitive?
Evolution is just a process -- please see my response to your
other post for further explanation.
If you're asking about whether it's advantageous for individual organisms to cooperate or compete, that strongly depends on the circumstances such as the available ecological niches, the risk involved in gathering energy, etc.
ID_neon said:
3) can a competitive system be self regulating (rely on others) if that is contrary to it's own survival?
I'm not sure what you mean. Can an organism that competes also engage in altruism? Certainly -- I don't see how this is contrary to its survival at all. What do you mean?
ID_neon said:
4) is evolution compatible with a cooperative or competitive system
Or both?
Again, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I think you're confusing evolution (a mere mechanism) with something else. How can a mechanism be cooperative or competitive?
ID_neon said:
5) is nature competitive or harmonious?
You're using adjectives that don't really describe the nouns you're asking about. Nature is just a collection of things and states of affairs. Both harmony and competition occur
within nature; but it doesn't make sense to say that nature
itself is either.
